WHOOP Workout

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful read:workout scope requirement. It does not mention that privacy_mode=raw demands explicit_user_intent=true, which is a notable behavioral gate, so the additional context is limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, purpose first, prerequisite second. Zero filler and fully front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Purpose and scope are both present. The main gap is not surfacing the raw-mode escalation requirement or the privacy_mode override in the description, but the schema handles those.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75% (response_format lacks a description; privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent are well documented). The description only says 'by UUID,' adding nothing beyond the schema's 'WHOOP resource id.' and arguably narrowing the schema's anyOf string|integer id to a UUID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get one WHOOP workout by UUID.' The singular 'one ... by UUID' implicitly distinguishes it from whoop_list_workouts in the sibling set, though it never names that alternative. Clear enough that an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Requires read:workout scope' provides a genuine prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against the obvious sibling whoop_list_workouts or the aggregated whoop_daily_summary. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.